Evaluation of Microturbine Co-generation Technology Application Project (MCTAP)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2011-2015, Indonesia
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
06/2014
Completion Date:
06/2014
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
20,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document MCTAP Terminal Evaluation Report ERC.pdf report English 2269.60 KB Posted 1527
Download document TOR_FE MCTAP International consultant.docx tor English 75.69 KB Posted 558
Download document 2015 12 04 Final Indonesia - MCTAP - GEF CC Mitigation Tracking Tool_complete.pdf related-document English 185.11 KB Posted 562
Title Evaluation of Microturbine Co-generation Technology Application Project (MCTAP)
Atlas Project Number: 00049011
Evaluation Plan: 2011-2015, Indonesia
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 06/2014
Planned End Date: 06/2014
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.5. Inclusive and sustainable solutions adopted to achieve increased energy efficiency and universal modern energy access (especially off-grid sources of renewable energy)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 20,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Rogelio Z. Aldover Team Head
Budi Prasetyo National Counterpart
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
PIMS Number: 3471
Key Stakeholders: Agency for Assessment and Application Technology
Countries: INDONESIA
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Evaluation Recommendation 1: Review the log frame indicators and targets to reduce the number of sub-activities and control points to monitor The MCTAP logical framework or project planning matrix (PPM) has been very useful in project planning, implementation and monitoring for the project to achieve its objectives, outputs and expected outcomes. However, during the course of implementation, the PMU is recommended to define in more specific terms some of the indicators and targets (in terms of specific output and outcomes).
2 Evaluation Recommendation 2: Develop a strategic plan to strengthen the MCTAP achievement of outcomes and the sustainability strategy;
3 Evaluation Recommendation 3: Exert more efforts in tightening financial planning and identify more co-financing inputs from stakeholder; The Mid-Term Evaluation finds the Project with the following financial situation: GEF/UNDP grant portion at only 21% budget left for 40 % time remaining in implementation period. For accelerating outputs to achieve outcomes, all expected outputs are expected to be funded under the GEF portion. Moreover, the proportional expenditure from co-financing amount aimed to implement demonstration projects and other support activities must be accelerated to achieve the outcomes within the project timeframe.
4 Evaluation Recommendation 4: Improve communication system and coordination within and outside the project through the use of efficient modes and systems; The Mid-Term evaluation finds the Project with an apparent need of closer monitoring of progress and achievements. MCTAP needs to continue to find means in defining and monitoring specific output-based tasks, responsibilities and performance of experts, consultants and national counterpart staff members with regards to quantity, quality and timeliness of deliverables. This will involve all parties responsible for providing quality and timely inputs to the project in order to ensure smoother implementation of the project. This recommendation is also based on the lesson learned that unclear job description and task distribution, and responsibilities among project consultants within project components and specific time-bound deliverables has led to ineffective project implementation as experienced in the project. Based also on the lesson learned that since the staff turnover rate is high, formal handovers of tasks, quality of documentation on knowledge management and reporting affect negatively the ineffectiveness of project implementation.
5 Evaluation Recommendation 5: Increase focus on policy and institutional matters to secure the technical progresses of the first half of the Project phase. During the first three years of implementation, the project aimed to establish at least some demonstrations so that it could overcome awareness barriers. In doing so, the necessary activities related to policy and institutional aspects are not as actively pursued as the technical aspects. Therefore, issues pertaining to natural gas supply, local technology availability in the country and post-sale maintenance are supposed to be discussed more intensively to come up with explicit policy to support for MCT. So far, these policy?related aspects are missing, and it appears to have lack of country-ownership on the project and lack of drivenness, because the expected policy support has not yet been established.
6 Evaluation Recommendation 6: Strengthen the integration of technical and marketing support functions. This recommendation is based on the lesson learned that inappropriate approach to marketing MCT has sent wrong signals to potential users and hampered the progress on involving more number of MCT suppliers and manufacturers to produce and market their products in Indonesia.
7 Evaluation Recommendation 7: Develop a national M&E framework for the Government of Indonesia to track progress of the MCT programme. The national framework will cover data gathering and feedback to meet the system of indicators and MOU commitments. It will be adopted by the Government of Indonesia to track the progress of the MCT programme;
8 Evaluation Recommendation 8: Increase general awareness about MCT among key stakeholders. It is noted that during the first three years of implementation, the project aimed to establish at least some demonstrations so that it could overcome awareness barriers. Also, it aims to build confidence in the investors and technology suppliers, as it is not a widely practiced or available technology in Indonesia. It is suggested that this effort of raising awareness about MCT should be sustained for the 2nd phase of project implementation.
1. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 1: Review the log frame indicators and targets to reduce the number of sub-activities and control points to monitor The MCTAP logical framework or project planning matrix (PPM) has been very useful in project planning, implementation and monitoring for the project to achieve its objectives, outputs and expected outcomes. However, during the course of implementation, the PMU is recommended to define in more specific terms some of the indicators and targets (in terms of specific output and outcomes).
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Management Response: The Management [acknowledges/rejects] the necessity to review indicators and targets. The PMU will hence update the MCTAP logical framework in order to regroup the activities into major activities and sub-activities and reconstitute the PPM into lesser number of control points and milestones to monitor and evaluate.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 2: Develop a strategic plan to strengthen the MCTAP achievement of outcomes and the sustainability strategy;
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Management Response: The Management [acknowledges/rejects] the necessity to develop a strategic plan to cover aspects such as meeting targets, mobilizing committed co-financing resources to supplement the incremental GEF grant financing, strengthening the project implementation and management organization in order to draw in the needed policy and gas supply support, etc. for the next two years and years after the project has ended in 2014 that will strengthen the MCTAP achievement of outcomes and the sustainability strategy. The plan should spell out the necessary activities and specific strategies, particularly in the natural gas supply and technology availability issues that will strengthen the MCTAP sustainability strategy.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 3: Exert more efforts in tightening financial planning and identify more co-financing inputs from stakeholder; The Mid-Term Evaluation finds the Project with the following financial situation: GEF/UNDP grant portion at only 21% budget left for 40 % time remaining in implementation period. For accelerating outputs to achieve outcomes, all expected outputs are expected to be funded under the GEF portion. Moreover, the proportional expenditure from co-financing amount aimed to implement demonstration projects and other support activities must be accelerated to achieve the outcomes within the project timeframe.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Management Response: The Management [acknowledges/rejects] the current financial situation and decides to revise the budget planning and fund mobilization strategy for the rest of the Project.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 4: Improve communication system and coordination within and outside the project through the use of efficient modes and systems; The Mid-Term evaluation finds the Project with an apparent need of closer monitoring of progress and achievements. MCTAP needs to continue to find means in defining and monitoring specific output-based tasks, responsibilities and performance of experts, consultants and national counterpart staff members with regards to quantity, quality and timeliness of deliverables. This will involve all parties responsible for providing quality and timely inputs to the project in order to ensure smoother implementation of the project. This recommendation is also based on the lesson learned that unclear job description and task distribution, and responsibilities among project consultants within project components and specific time-bound deliverables has led to ineffective project implementation as experienced in the project. Based also on the lesson learned that since the staff turnover rate is high, formal handovers of tasks, quality of documentation on knowledge management and reporting affect negatively the ineffectiveness of project implementation.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Management Response: The Management [acknowledges/rejects] the need to constantly improve coordination efforts internal capacity of the Project team, especially for the internal Knowledge Management and keeping an overview of the progress of activities and completion on outputs.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 5: Increase focus on policy and institutional matters to secure the technical progresses of the first half of the Project phase. During the first three years of implementation, the project aimed to establish at least some demonstrations so that it could overcome awareness barriers. In doing so, the necessary activities related to policy and institutional aspects are not as actively pursued as the technical aspects. Therefore, issues pertaining to natural gas supply, local technology availability in the country and post-sale maintenance are supposed to be discussed more intensively to come up with explicit policy to support for MCT. So far, these policy?related aspects are missing, and it appears to have lack of country-ownership on the project and lack of drivenness, because the expected policy support has not yet been established.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Management Response: The Management [acknowledges/rejects] the fact that a special attention should be given to policy-related matters from now on and ti secure the technical know-how and partnerships established.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 6: Strengthen the integration of technical and marketing support functions. This recommendation is based on the lesson learned that inappropriate approach to marketing MCT has sent wrong signals to potential users and hampered the progress on involving more number of MCT suppliers and manufacturers to produce and market their products in Indonesia.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Management Response: The Management [acknowledges/rejects] the above-mentioned recommendation.

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 7: Develop a national M&E framework for the Government of Indonesia to track progress of the MCT programme. The national framework will cover data gathering and feedback to meet the system of indicators and MOU commitments. It will be adopted by the Government of Indonesia to track the progress of the MCT programme;
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Management Response: The Management [acknowledges/rejects] the above-mentioned recommendation.

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 8: Increase general awareness about MCT among key stakeholders. It is noted that during the first three years of implementation, the project aimed to establish at least some demonstrations so that it could overcome awareness barriers. Also, it aims to build confidence in the investors and technology suppliers, as it is not a widely practiced or available technology in Indonesia. It is suggested that this effort of raising awareness about MCT should be sustained for the 2nd phase of project implementation.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/12/19]

Management Response: The Management [acknowledges/rejects] the above-mentioned recommendation.

Key Actions:

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org